South Africa Case Law

Joubert v Drotsky (AR9/2023)

Joubert v Drotsky (AR9/2023) [2024] ZAKZPHC 72 (30 August 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR9/2023

Judges

Mossop, Mngadi

The appellant failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the year-long delay in filing her notice of appeal. Her affidavit was vague, omitted key dates, and did not account for the entire period. The explanation regarding attempts to raise funds was insufficient and unsupported by detail. Furthermore, her prospects of success were poor, as she did not discharge the onus of proving the payment was a gift, and her arguments regarding the Afrikaans statement and procedural irregularity were unfounded. The affidavit supporting condonation was improperly commissioned by her own coun…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Late Filing Of Appeal
• Finality Of Litigation
• Onus Of Proof
• Commissioner Of Oaths Regulation

Body Corporate of Eldo Villas v Monehi and Another (Reasons) (A170/2023)

Body Corporate of Eldo Villas v Monehi and Another (Reasons) (A170/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1390 (26 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A170/2023

Judges

Swanepoel, Mabesele, Amien

The court held that the court a quo became functus officio after pronouncing its order striking the application from the roll for lack of urgency. The subsequent withdrawal and substitution of the order with the applicant's draft order was impermissible and constituted a nullity. The court relied on the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Thobejane, which confirmed that a court may only correct its order to the extent of an ambiguity, patent error, or omission, and not revisit the merits after final judgment. Accordingly, the appeal was upheld, the erroneous order was set aside, and the ori…

Source excerpt

• Functus Officio
• Urgent Application
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Finality Of Litigation

MEC for the Department of Public Works and Others v Ikamva Architects (Pty) Ltd (596/2008)

MEC for the Department of Public Works and Others v Ikamva Architects (Pty) Ltd (596/2008) [2024] ZAECBHC 6 (25 April 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

596/2008

Judge

Bands

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the requirements for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) and the common law. Although the order of Majiki AJ was erroneously granted, the applicants were not absent in the sense contemplated by the rule, having had notice and deliberately choosing not to participate. Their explanation for default was inadequate, and their conduct amounted to acquiescence in the orders. The applicants' persistent litigation and delay were opportunistic and contrary to the public interest in finality. The court held that even if the jurisdictional requirements were…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Finality Of Litigation
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Public Interest
• Rule Of Law

Chauchard and Others v Fire Ring Trading 15 (Pty) Ltd (19/17910)

Chauchard and Others v Fire Ring Trading 15 (Pty) Ltd (19/17910) [2023] ZAGPJHC 507 (18 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19/17910

Judge

Thompson

The court found that the applicants had satisfied all requirements for a final winding up order and that the respondent's repeated failure to prosecute any of its rescission applications to finality over a protracted period was fatal to its case. The respondent's reliance on the rescission applications as a defence was deemed opportunistic and self-created, lacking bona fides. The court held that the discretion to refuse a winding up order is narrow and requires compelling reasons, which were absent in this case due to the respondent's inordinate delay and lack of reasonable explanation. The…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Creditor Entitlement
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Finality Of Litigation

Mokadi v National Tertiary Retirement Fund (A5043/2021)

Mokadi v National Tertiary Retirement Fund (A5043/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 876 (14 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5043/2021

Judges

Molahlehi, Adams, Mahalelo

The court held that the appellant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the twenty-month delay in prosecuting the appeal, as required for condonation. The explanation offered, which relied on the Covid-19 pandemic, financial difficulties, and emotional stress, did not cover the entire period of delay and was deemed superficial and unconvincing. Furthermore, the principle of finality in litigation militated against granting condonation after such an inordinate delay. On the merits, the court found that the writ of execution was incompetent because the amount claimed was not c…

Source excerpt

• Condonation For Late Appeal
• Writ Of Execution
• Liquidity Of Judgment
• Finality Of Litigation

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Wessels and Another (11862/2021)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Wessels and Another (11862/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 665 (2 September 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

11862/2021

Judge

Neukircher

The High Court refused condonation for a 25-month late leave to appeal application and, in any event, found no prospects of success on appeal.

• Condonation
• Leave To Appeal
• Delay In Filing
• Prospects Of Success
• Finality Of Litigation
• Leave-to-appeal

Du Plessis v Benson and Others (9982/2018)

Du Plessis v Benson and Others (9982/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 576 (20 October 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

9982/2018

Judge

G Ally

The court held that the respondents failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding their eviction from Erf 70 Montclare Township. The pending application for leave to appeal before another judge did not constitute lis pendens sufficient to justify granting leave, especially given the respondents' failure to prosecute that application timeously. The court found that the reference to 8 Clement Street was irrelevant, as the title deed and sale in execution clearly pertained to Erf 70 Montclare Township. The court emphasized the need fo…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Eviction
• Lis Pendens
• Dilatory Tactics
• Finality Of Litigation

Ledwaba N.O v Mthembu and Others (25312/2016)

Ledwaba N.O v Mthembu and Others (25312/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 641 (30 August 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25312/2016

Judge

JF Pretorius

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in launching the rescission application, with his reliance on lack of funds being vague and unsupported. The applicant did not adequately address the extent and cause of the delay, nor the prejudice to the first respondent and others. The principle of finality in litigation and the interests of justice weighed against granting condonation, especially given the protracted history of the dispute and the applicant's dilatory conduct. Furthermore, the applicant did not establish a jurisdictional fact und…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Condonation
• Executor Appointment
• Bona Fide Purchaser
• Finality Of Litigation

Sekgotho and Another v Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2158/17)

Sekgotho and Another v Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2158/17) [2021] ZALCJHB 218 (6 August 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2158/17

Judge

L King

The Labour Court dismissed an unopposed condonation application for a late leave-to-appeal filing, finding the 17.5-month delay excessive and inadequately explained.

• Condonation
• Leave To Appeal
• Late Filing
• Prospects Of Success
• Prejudice
• Finality Of Litigation

Lubbe Construction (Pty) Ltd v Mahon NO and Another (0044751/17)

Lubbe Construction (Pty) Ltd v Mahon NO and Another (0044751/17) [2020] ZAGPJHC 102 (23 April 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0044751/17

Judge

Vally

The High Court dismissed a review of an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator could proceed in the applicant’s absence and that no misconduct or irregularity was shown.

• Arbitration Act Review
• Arbitrator Misconduct
• Gross Irregularity
• Finality Of Litigation
• Arbitration-review
• Arbitrator-misconduct